Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the optimistic-locking model and the source of expected_updated_at, but does not say what happens on a version mismatch (error type, retry guidance), whether omitted fields are left untouched, or what permissions are needed for an edit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the operation and its fields come first, and the locking prerequisite follows immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and thin parameter docs, the essentials are present but the failure path (version conflict), partial-update semantics, and return value are unaddressed. An agent could call it but would need to guess how to recover from a stale expected_updated_at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the three editable fields and explains the semantics of expected_updated_at (a version token from a fresh read). The mismatch between 'schedule' and the actual 'scheduled_at' parameter plus the undocumented 'id' behavior for partial updates keeps it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Update') plus the resource ('an existing post') and enumerates the mutable fields (caption, platforms, schedule). 'Existing' implicitly separates it from create_post, but cancel_post and read siblings are not explicitly differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: expected_updated_at must come from a fresh list_posts/get_post_results read, which tells the agent the correct call sequence. It stops short of stating when to prefer cancel_post or how to handle edits where the post was already changed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.